__/ [Euro Stacey] on Tuesday 13 September 2005 12:24 \__
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> __/ [lolly] on Tuesday 13 September 2005 11:16 \__
>>> many thanks roy
>>> one of the sites is daintylady.co.uk
>> Wow! Nice site. What were we talking about...?
> Roy, you got you tongue out to far there. :-)
*LOL* I am used to technical sites. I try to keep that stuff away from me or
else I'd never get any work done. *smile*
>>Oh, SEO, of course... so the
>> banners upon the bellybutton can go. They only disguise information and
>> confuse the *ahem*... crawlers.
> Shouldn't those banners are part of the image.
> http://www.daintylady.co.uk/images/special.jpg . The file names could be
> changed to a better keyword format like bridal wear, or special lingerie.
> The images/special isn't doing anything SEO wise.
Crawlers = guys. It was just a joke. Maybe I should have emphasised it
>> * The site has 62 pages indexed. Does that make sense to you? Have you
>> * Google detects 9 inbound links, all of which from the site itself. Are
>> there any external ones? Links from other sites, which out to get counted
>> or be prominent enough to get listed?
> We know that Google only shows a sample of backlinks and it Google does
> use all the links just doesn't reflect them in that search. When doing a
> search for "daintylady.co.uk"(yes, with the quotes) you will find more.
Wow! That's a nice trick. I usually go for site:http://example.org
>> * What traffic were you used to and what traffic are you getting now?
>> * The site's code looks quite clean to me, but the underlying technology
>> a wee outdated. I notice that the design is based on tables, but I do not
>> believe this to have any impact on SE performance.
> Shouldn't hurt SEO really with using tables. But as far as good text for
> what she wants to be found by can change and the file names on pages can
> also be changed to better reflect what she wants to be found by.
Yes, I thought about it, but it would not provide an actual explanation for
>> * Have you made any changes to your site recently? (or around the
>> of August)
>> * Have you got figures to compare against from August-September last
> This would help and also what searches she was doing well for.
...which is why I suggested looking at the logs.
>> * Are the other site/s that you said was/were affected on the same Web
>> (#)? Are the other site/s similar in nature (niche)? Is its/their design
> This could be a slim chance of something happening but very slim.
>> * Have your site/s gone down recently? If your site is down when the
>> are re-built, e.g. in August 10th (I believe it was the 7th), your site
>> get neglected for a month. This had me penalised in February this year
>> there was scheduled maintenance to be carried out by the host (DNS
>> migration). It is worth investigating. Check your logs to see if there
>> downtimes. Also consider having a look at traffic from crawlers and
>> Google in particular.
> This really shouldn't have caused a problem. I just went through it myself
> (changed hosts) and never lost any ranking. Now if the site was down for a
> good amount of time it could cause a little bit of shuffle, but it should
> go back up. I had similar problems a year ago.
The downtime I was referring to was intended to last 6 hours, but ended up
taking 12 hours. it all happened at a critical time when there was some
reshuffling going on. 30 days later, things returned to normal overnight.
>> * Referring back to (#), has your host become slower in terms of service
>> response time and/or bandwidth? You must always aspire to be at the top
>> percentile when it comes to persistency of traffic.
> I feel she does need a little more links and some changes could help. Keep
> it fresh.:-)
About links, this does not explain why there was better traffic in the past.
The 'grace period' for new sites will have expired, don't you agree?
You are right about change (dynamic factor) as we have just been told that
the site is 9/10 months old.
>> __/ [Sam] adds at 11:21 \__
>>> Google is cleaning house right now and purging its index of 404 error
>>> pages. Check your 'from the site' links at google (when you do a search
>>> for your url address) and it will show you if you have any very old 404
>>> error pages that google has been clinging onto. If you do then just do a
>>> robots.txt file for them or upload 404 error pages with meta tag noindex
>>> or htaccess file. Either of the 3 ways will work if that's the problem.
>>> The current google algo is about getting rid of very old ead links
>>> google has been carrying around too long. it';s causing many sites to
>>> drop right now.
>> Could you provide us with some links (references) to that? I did not know
>> that and I find it rather curious.
> Roy, who knows how Sam comes up with these notions.
I do believe he read/heard something. I would love to judge for myself...
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: 85% of plant life in in the oceans
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
1:00pm up 19 days 6:34, 3 users, load average: 0.38, 0.51, 0.45